Abstract
This paper examines how parliamentarians design their questions and flout parliamentary rules of questioning, leading to confrontations between parliamentarians (MPs) and (Prime) Ministers. A comparative corpus-assisted discourse analysis of UK Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) and Ghanaian Minister’s Questions (GMQs) indicates that GMQs are less confrontational than PMQs since Ghanaian Parliamentary Speakers prevent MPs from asking, for example, questions of opinion and argumentation, which contain strong emotions, generate attacks, accusations and counter-accusations. The paper argues that the confrontations and (counter-)attacks result from the way MPs design their questions. The paper suggests that “yobbery and public school twittishness” in PMQs could be curtailed if the Speaker would disallow questions that flout parliamentary rules of questioning as it is done in GMQs. The paper has implications for parliamentary interactions generally.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Abibisem: Journal of African Culture and Civilization
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
